|
On November 28 2007 04:44 MyLostTemple wrote:we must first evaluate what exactly makes warcraft 3 inherently different from starcraft. In war3 there is a specific burden placed upon the player: the creeping factor. A player who creeps faster and more efficiently is rewarded with high level heros and more items at their disposal. This forces the war3 player to enter an endless cycle where he creeps around the map while harassing his opponent who is creeping as well, eventually both players are forced to enter in an all out battle that can't be avoided and the player who creeped better won (unless of course the other player outmicros him.) This is not the how starcraft functions.
That's akin to saying SC is only a production game and that all you have to do is mass units and send them on the enemy.
Higher hero levels don't always end up in a win, nor does outcreeping does either. In many cases some strategies bank on very little creeping but constant pressure, for example Paladin 1st vs UD, or tower strats in HvO. Many fast tech NE strats as well (like no AoW tech -> T2 Tavern hero strats) will comport very little creeping but an extremely fast tech. Heroes are important but armies are certainly not meaningless, and higher level heroes won't make you win a -20 food battle (unless you have a very nicely prepared position and tactic) and map control as well as area denial techniques are just as important. Many things fall from using the quirks of a fixed economy to your advantage to using upkeep to your advantage, however that always comports a risk (50 food vs quick 70 food), where you see scouting and gathering intelligence is just as important in WC3 than SC. Creeping is but a way to gain an advantage.
WC3 is deeply different from SC1, which I agree with you, but it's not only because of creeping. I only felt like pointing that out.
The pace of the game in general, as well as how it's designed (over small amount of units) are what makes decision making and execution so different in both games, but their importance is not different.
In fact, WC3 is a very good example of how you can make a "n00bified" game work at a very high level, but SC2 should be much much faster paced.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
You missed his point, which is that creeping adds a completely seperate element to gameplay that allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay.
|
Hmm, replays made and broke the game. They helped the fan-base tremendously, yet gave us the cookie-cutter strats at the same time. One of the interesting things about replays is that you will observe the mediocre players copying a strat without understanding it. They know that is makes them win but they don't know why. You see this usually when they fail to adapt to their opponents counter and eventually lose while following the strat protocol. I wouldn't worry too much about below average players getting much better with MBS if they can't understand what they are doing even now.
Regarding how MBS will affect the pro-scene. I imagine that like professional footballers they will go where the money is. Some might have diehard game loyalty and despise the new game and refuse to play it. Even so if SC2 has a large enough user-base and is deemed competitive, then a pro scene will emerge regardless if it is comprised of the old SC crowd or totally new players.
So what will be the criteria for game competitiveness? On the top of my list is, balance. No one will be interested in a broken game. There are a bunch of other things I would mention before we got to MBS as well, things like the pace and feel of the game, whether I thought my army was responding the way I wanted it to (not following some mad pathing bug, etc), and I think MBS would help in these situations and add to the games enjoyability.
Anyways MBS is accused of making the game "easier", but how will this affect competition?
The "easiness" of the game won't affect the competition as long as it is always possible to do something better than your opponent. That is the key thing really. Even with MBS there will be people who are just going to be that much faster than you. And the people at the top end of the spectrum will be the pros.
Actually I don't think adding MBS will make the game easier, it will certainly make it more enjoyable.
Why won't it be any easier? because the APM that was spent on the base micromanagement fighting the UI will now be spent accomplishing other tasks that directly give you the edge over your opponent. Just for the simple fact that it is always possible for someone to play faster than their opponent. People will not stop and twiddle their thumbs now that the UI has been IMPROVED.
re: worker harass
erm, from my WC3 experience. worker harass is very effective. one of my favourite strats was Warden and mass moonwells. The gist of this strat was to constantly cast AoE spell on your enemies gold line and destroy their economy.
If you ever see some ANGRYKOREAMAN replays you see that he employs also employs other creative worker harassments, notably with invisible Bloodmage and mortars. In fact if you have WC3 installed I suggest you watch some of his games as they are also highly amusing.
Early game harassments are also commonplace.
If SC2 is still going to have very high DPS AoE spells then, I imagine worker harass will still be present. If the game is going to be BIG. i.e battles all over the place, then you can't be watching everywhere at once.
Oh, and my final thought about the first 6 months of the game. I imagine this will probably be my favourite bit of the game. New weird and wonderful strategies everyday. Imbalance unit of the month. Like the Burgess shale and the Cambrian explosion. How marvellous.
After that 6 month period as the matches become the same old stale shit, when every replay looks identical except just a little faster or slower. That is when the game is dead for me and I will keep following only because I'm addicted.  That is unless SC2 has inbuilt permanent fun. That is for me, endless possibilities. Guess I just have to wait and see.
|
On November 28 2007 07:20 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
You missed his point, which is that creeping adds a completely seperate element to gameplay that allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay.
If that was the point it was a bad one since creeping is not what allows MBS to have little to no effect in Wc3. The only time you really need MBS is focusing towers I'd say.
I don't think further comparisons with Wc3, any other game or sports will add anything to the debate. Even if there was a great game with MBS working, the pro SBS guys wouldn't believe it'd work for Sc2 right?
Can we at least agree that it would be a mistake not to try taking MBS in and see how it works out (Alpha/Beta)? (which is almost a given anyway)
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
it allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay because it replaces hectic macromanagement
|
On November 28 2007 07:21 teapot wrote:After that 6 month period as the matches become the same old stale shit, when every replay looks identical except just a little faster or slower. That is when the game is dead for me and I will keep following only because I'm addicted. That is unless SC2 has inbuilt permanent fun. That is for me, endless possibilities. Guess I just have to wait and see.
Like broodwar?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2007 09:49 Prose wrote:
MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
With no scale factor, the result is illogical:
time.to.build.1.tank = time.to.build.12.tanks
With a scale factor of 4 units per second, the result is more sensible:
time.to.build.1.tank < time.to.build.12.tanks
.25 seconds < 3 seconds
So, how to implement this? Via an example, with 8 gateways bound to hotkey 5, you have three options:
5,z,z,z,z,d,d,t,t ..... to build 4 zealots, 2 dragoons, 2 high templars
5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to build 8 zealots
hold5,z ..... to build 8 zealots
Option 1 gives you diversity of units
Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit
Option 3 even faster way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield as it centers your screen onto your hotkeyed buildings (a function of pressing a hotkey twice). You are also forced to watch animation as each building gets highlighted for .25 seconds. So, with 8 buildings, that is .25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. In a newbie game, 2.0 seconds is nothing, but in a pro-game, it's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it.
My question for anti-MBS: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it?
My question for pro-MBS: Why should Player A with 10 gateways have the additional advantage of having the same time/attention cost as Player B with 1 gateway? (Yes, Player A already has a +9 unit advantage, but this is logically the reward for the inherent higher mineral cost).
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 28 2007 11:18 Prose wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2007 09:49 Prose wrote:
MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
With no scale factor, the result is illogical:
time.to.build.1.tank = time.to.build.12.tanks
With a scale factor of 4 units per second, the result is more sensible:
time.to.build.1.tank < time.to.build.12.tanks
.25 seconds < 3 seconds
So, how to implement this? Via an example, with 8 gateways bound to hotkey 5, you have three options:
5,z,z,z,z,d,d,t,t ..... to build 4 zealots, 2 dragoons, 2 high templars
5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to build 8 zealots
hold5,z ..... to build 8 zealots
Option 1 gives you diversity of units
Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit
Option 3 even faster way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield as it centers your screen onto your hotkeyed buildings (a function of pressing a hotkey twice). You are also forced to watch animation as each building gets highlighted for .25 seconds. So, with 8 buildings, that is .25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. In a newbie game, 2.0 seconds is nothing, but in a pro-game, it's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it. My question for anti-MBS: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it? . If it's option 3, probably not. I think that's actually a fairly reasonable solution. I'm still extremely curious how Blizzard can possibly implement MBS and keep unit production fair for Zerg.
For those who still don't see how MBS options 1/2 cheapen gameplay at the pro level (all levels for that matter), simply look at a player like Kwanro. Every single pro has the ability to micro like he does (and even like WC3 players do, I assume) but in SC, it's an inefficient use of your actions. With MBS, he can stand to micro as he currently does and get away with it. Yes, we can say that there will still be a high level of competition within the pros (and a large distinction between pros and amateurs), but it cheapens the abilities of someone like July who is a far more talented player than Kwanro.
|
On November 28 2007 11:34 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2007 11:18 Prose wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2007 09:49 Prose wrote:
MBS should be in the game, but a scale factor should apply.
With no scale factor, the result is illogical:
time.to.build.1.tank = time.to.build.12.tanks
With a scale factor of 4 units per second, the result is more sensible:
time.to.build.1.tank < time.to.build.12.tanks
.25 seconds < 3 seconds
So, how to implement this? Via an example, with 8 gateways bound to hotkey 5, you have three options:
5,z,z,z,z,d,d,t,t ..... to build 4 zealots, 2 dragoons, 2 high templars
5,z,z,z,z,z,z,z,z ..... to build 8 zealots
hold5,z ..... to build 8 zealots
Option 1 gives you diversity of units
Option 2 fast way to massproduce one unit
Option 3 even faster way to massproduce unit, but holding the hotkey forces your attention away from the battlefield as it centers your screen onto your hotkeyed buildings (a function of pressing a hotkey twice). You are also forced to watch animation as each building gets highlighted for .25 seconds. So, with 8 buildings, that is .25s x 8 = 2.0 seconds of animation time. In a newbie game, 2.0 seconds is nothing, but in a pro-game, it's an eternity!
Pros will not use option 3, but it's there for newbs. Will newbs beat pros using option 3? NO. Think about it. My question for anti-MBS: Will a scaled implementation of MBS affect games at the pro level? Will pros even use it? . If it's option 3, probably not. I think that's actually a fairly reasonable solution. I'm still extremely curious how Blizzard can possibly implement MBS and keep unit production fair for Zerg. For those who still don't see how MBS options 1/2 cheapen gameplay at the pro level (all levels for that matter), simply look at a player like Kwanro. Every single pro has the ability to micro like he does (and even like WC3 players do, I assume) but in SC, it's an inefficient use of your actions. With MBS, he can stand to micro as he currently does and get away with it. Yes, we can say that there will still be a high level of competition within the pros (and a large distinction between pros and amateurs), but it cheapens the abilities of someone like July who is a far more talented player than Kwanro.
Yes, Kwanro's a perfect example. His muta micro vs. Bisu was highlight-material, but his macro was suffering during that time; when he finally attended to his base, he built like 4+ hatcheries at once.
From what I hear, Blizzard is slightly tweaking so SC2 is more micro, but I hope this is not at the expense of macro (hence my plea to scale-factor MBS, at the least!). It just means that more micro-intensive units like ghosts and queens and corsairs can be used more, which could make Boxer-like players stand a chance in the macro-oriented BW of today. I mean, there's a balance of course, so that using ghosts is as viable as using goliaths (and even wraiths) v. mass carriers. True, it maybe cheapens the 'novelty' of using ghosts, but having three viable counters that tailor to both micro and macro players is a good trade-off. I mean, when was the last time you've seen ghosts used to lockdown carriers? It's just not viable these days.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On November 28 2007 07:10 BlackSphinx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2007 04:44 MyLostTemple wrote:we must first evaluate what exactly makes warcraft 3 inherently different from starcraft. In war3 there is a specific burden placed upon the player: the creeping factor. A player who creeps faster and more efficiently is rewarded with high level heros and more items at their disposal. This forces the war3 player to enter an endless cycle where he creeps around the map while harassing his opponent who is creeping as well, eventually both players are forced to enter in an all out battle that can't be avoided and the player who creeped better won (unless of course the other player outmicros him.) This is not the how starcraft functions. That's akin to saying SC is only a production game and that all you have to do is mass units and send them on the enemy. Higher hero levels don't always end up in a win, nor does outcreeping does either. In many cases some strategies bank on very little creeping but constant pressure, for example Paladin 1st vs UD, or tower strats in HvO. Many fast tech NE strats as well (like no AoW tech -> T2 Tavern hero strats) will comport very little creeping but an extremely fast tech. Heroes are important but armies are certainly not meaningless, and higher level heroes won't make you win a -20 food battle (unless you have a very nicely prepared position and tactic) and map control as well as area denial techniques are just as important. Many things fall from using the quirks of a fixed economy to your advantage to using upkeep to your advantage, however that always comports a risk (50 food vs quick 70 food), where you see scouting and gathering intelligence is just as important in WC3 than SC. Creeping is but a way to gain an advantage. WC3 is deeply different from SC1, which I agree with you, but it's not only because of creeping. I only felt like pointing that out. The pace of the game in general, as well as how it's designed (over small amount of units) are what makes decision making and execution so different in both games, but their importance is not different. In fact, WC3 is a very good example of how you can make a "n00bified" game work at a very high level, but SC2 should be much much faster paced.
You seem to miss the point entirely... you put both my points in black and white, like i said War3 was all micro and SC was all macro. I did not.
When people get good at this game they wont be running all over the map with their units like in war3, or at least not constantly, there will be static times in the game where macro will occur, MBS makes this far too easy, and since SC2 will be a more economic game than War3 (just like SC1 was) i worry it will screw up the game play because the macro phase will be nightmarishly easy.
So.... no... your example at the end is horrible because there wont be anything to maintain that pace. Please prove otherwise, but first reread my previous post.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
I also think prose is raising an excellent point here, let us envision the current SC2 at the pro level.
We know blizzard has MBS and automining thus making macro easier. We also know that Blizzard has made the micro aspect of SC2 easier by giving us an unlimited selection cap and smartcasting. In the original starcraft, the farther ahead i am, the more i have to keep up with. If i have 10 gates i have to macro harder than if i had 5, MBS seems to overly reward a player who is ahead early on. It's possible to macro with SO much ease that your opponent may never manage to out mass you. Don't say harassment, it should be much easier to spot and prepare for that with MBS and automining assisting you.
What's nice about SBS and other UI features is that the player who's ahead is occupied with more tasks, this makes it easier for the other player to catch up to him. There will be less ways for the player who's behind to recover. Less room for miss micro with a large army when your have more to control... less room to get behind while you macro in your larger base. I hope i'm wrong. But more so i hope these features are removed from competitive play, so i can play starcraft again.
|
So you mean that it would not be much easier to harrass with MBS and automine?
|
We don' t want things to be easy, we want things to be difficult like it is in starcraft right now.
|
A better player should have avenues open to him throughout the entire game that allow him to prove that he is better than his oponent. The reason players clone their drones at the start isnt because it looks pretty, its because it gives them an advantage over someone who doesn't. These actions should exist throughout the entire game so better players that can excute these actions will get the deserved advantage. MBS removes a lot of these avenues, because every player will be able to execute large portions of the game just as easily as a pro.
In most RTS games, there are periods of time where there will be no fighting between players. Its inevitable. In warcraft 3, people filled this time with creeping. In starcraft, people filled this time, making sure there macro was perfect. In starcraft 2, we havnt seen anything that will fill this gap. Harrassing is not a counter to this argument because its these stages in the game where players are the best equipped to handle harassment and well setup players will be impossible to effectively harass. In a situation where 2 players are not fighting, what can one do to give himself the edge over another?
|
On November 28 2007 13:24 lololol wrote:
So you mean that it would not be much easier to harrass with MBS and automine?
Even easier to defend harass too.
|
On November 28 2007 15:54 Fen wrote:
In most RTS games, there are periods of time where there will be no fighting between players. Its inevitable. In warcraft 3, people filled this time with creeping. In starcraft, people filled this time, making sure there macro was perfect. In starcraft 2, we havnt seen anything that will fill this gap. Harrassing is not a counter to this argument because its these stages in the game where players are the best equipped to handle harassment and well setup players will be impossible to effectively harass. In a situation where 2 players are not fighting, what can one do to give himself the edge over another?
Expand? Tech? Scout?
And why harrassement isn't an option? Looking for opportunities throughout the whole game is one of the ways to gain advantage, isn't it?
Possibilities are many for those who see them.
|
Manit0u, every time someone comes up with that argument you "counter" it with empty phrases. Don't you see that you have no arguments on your side? Your last post shows confidence but no facts. Fen gave facts, you didn't. Think about it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 28 2007 19:13 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2007 15:54 Fen wrote:
In most RTS games, there are periods of time where there will be no fighting between players. Its inevitable. In warcraft 3, people filled this time with creeping. In starcraft, people filled this time, making sure there macro was perfect. In starcraft 2, we havnt seen anything that will fill this gap. Harrassing is not a counter to this argument because its these stages in the game where players are the best equipped to handle harassment and well setup players will be impossible to effectively harass. In a situation where 2 players are not fighting, what can one do to give himself the edge over another? Expand? Tech? Scout? And why harrassement isn't an option? Looking for opportunities throughout the whole game is one of the ways to gain advantage, isn't it? Possibilities are many for those who see them. Those three are already done, and expanding/teching take up very little time. Continually scouting is too costly since you generally have to sacrifice to unit to do so.
He's saying harassment doesn't count because if both players have extra free time, then the defender can be even more vigilant to counter the aggressor and that doesn't require actions, just observation. Like Tasteless said, if people had that free time they could easily start moving their workers as soon as they see a blip on the radar and given the 150 unit selection cap, reaver kills would be extremely hard to come by.
It wouldn't really apply if both players were attempting to harass, but then again it would be even worse if both players just defended.
|
On November 28 2007 10:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
it allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay because it replaces hectic macromanagement
While this is true to a certain degree, I'd have to agree with silynxer that it isn't the main reason that MBS has almost no effect on the gameplay of a micro-based game like Wc3. This is due to a combination of other reasons:
1. First and foremost, the unit cap on Wc3 is 100 food, half of SC's 200 supply limit. Smaller supply limit = smaller armies. Smaller armies = less macromanagement.
2.Almost as affecting as the supply limit, is Wc3's 'upkeep system'. If you don't know what it is, after a certain supply (50), you start getting taxed on each worker's gold return, and and each trip returns only 7 gold instead of 10. Past 80, this is reduced to 4 gold each trip. This changes macro entirely, as many pros will quickly get 50 supply, then stall/harass the opponent while they build up a surplus of gold. Once they get to their desired surplus, they quickly spend it all, go up to 70 or 80 supply, and quickly attack to take full advantage of their supply gap. This is 'good macromanagement' in Wc3. This is entirely different than good unit macro in SC, which is basically constant production (among other things).
3. In Wc3, troops generally take more supply. The base infantry unit for all races is 2 supply, except Orc, where the grunt takes up 3 supply. There are no 1-supply offensive units, unlike SC. Some basic ranged units take 3 supply, and most of the mid-game & late-game units take up 4+ supply. More supply per unit -> smaller armies -> less macromanagement.
4.Wc3 has heroes which take up 5 supply and die much less often than regular units. Add to this the fact that most pros use 2 or 3 heroes. This is 10-15 supply, or 10-15% of your max supply that rarely dies. Could you imagine how much less attention to macro you'd need if 20-30 supply of your army in SC hardly ever died?
5. 1,2,3, & 4 combine to make army sizes in Wc3 drastically smaller than in SC. In war3, 10-15 units + heroes is a massive late-game army. In SC, this is a group of marines and a few medics, or even worse, 5-7 supply worth of zerglings. Once again, smaller armies means less time spent making units, and less time spent back at your base, away from the battle.
6.Last but not least, the other half of macro, resource management, is also scaled down in Wc3. In War3, five workers per base is the maximum you need to get 100% primary resource (gold) efficiency. In SC, it's something like 20-30 depending on # of patches? War3's secondary resource, lumber, is solved by 5-7 workers for all bases, unlike SC, where you need 3 workers per base to make use of your gas. Adding to this is the upkeep system; if you watch pro games, top players hardly ever have more than 2 active bases mining. And why would you? 3 bases means 20-22 supply, or 1/5 of your max supply, are used solely on resource management. In SC, you are CONSTANTLY producing workers in addition to your army.
In a game where macro is constant production (i.e. SC & SC2), MBS will drastically reduce the overall work/attention required to maintain a large army. In a game where macro ISN'T constant production (i.e. War3), you simply aren't spending a significant % of time selecting buildings and creating units; MBS hardly affects the gameplay at all.
Using Wc3 to predict the effects of MBS is a bad argument. Wc3, due to a myriad of reasons, has a completely different macro game than SC (and surely SC2), and we can't say whether or not MBS would work in SC2 based on its presence in WC3.
|
On November 29 2007 01:21 AlabasterFilth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2007 10:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
it allows MBS to have little to no effect on gameplay because it replaces hectic macromanagement While this is true to a certain degree, I'd have to agree with silynxer that it isn't the main reason that MBS has almost no effect on the gameplay of a micro-based game like Wc3. This is due to a combination of other reasons: 1. First and foremost, the unit cap on Wc3 is 100 food, half of SC's 200 supply limit. Smaller supply limit = smaller armies. Smaller armies = less macromanagement. 2.Almost as affecting as the supply limit, is Wc3's 'upkeep system'. If you don't know what it is, after a certain supply (50), you start getting taxed on each worker's gold return, and and each trip returns only 7 gold instead of 10. Past 80, this is reduced to 4 gold each trip. This changes macro entirely, as many pros will quickly get 50 supply, then stall/harass the opponent while they build up a surplus of gold. Once they get to their desired surplus, they quickly spend it all, go up to 70 or 80 supply, and quickly attack to take full advantage of their supply gap. This is 'good macromanagement' in Wc3. This is entirely different than good unit macro in SC, which is basically constant production (among other things). 3. In Wc3, troops generally take more supply. The base infantry unit for all races is 2 supply, except Orc, where the grunt takes up 3 supply. There are no 1-supply offensive units, unlike SC. Some basic ranged units take 3 supply, and most of the mid-game & late-game units take up 4+ supply. More supply per unit -> smaller armies -> less macromanagement. 4.Wc3 has heroes which take up 5 supply and die much less often than regular units. Add to this the fact that most pros use 2 or 3 heroes. This is 10-15 supply, or 10-15% of your max supply that rarely dies. Could you imagine how much less attention to macro you'd need if 20-30 supply of your army in SC hardly ever died? 5. 1,2,3, & 4 combine to make army sizes in Wc3 drastically smaller than in SC. In war3, 10-15 units + heroes is a massive late-game army. In SC, this is a group of marines and a few medics, or even worse, 5-7 supply worth of zerglings. Once again, smaller armies means less time spent making units, and less time spent back at your base, away from the battle. 6.Last but not least, the other half of macro, resource management, is also scaled down in Wc3. In War3, five workers per base is the maximum you need to get 100% primary resource (gold) efficiency. In SC, it's something like 20-30 depending on # of patches? War3's secondary resource, lumber, is solved by 5-7 workers for all bases, unlike SC, where you need 3 workers per base to make use of your gas. Adding to this is the upkeep system; if you watch pro games, top players hardly ever have more than 2 active bases mining. And why would you? 3 bases means 20-22 supply, or 1/5 of your max supply, are used solely on resource management. In SC, you are CONSTANTLY producing workers in addition to your army. In a game where macro is constant production (i.e. SC & SC2), MBS will drastically reduce the overall work/attention required to maintain a large army. In a game where macro ISN'T constant production (i.e. War3), you simply aren't spending a significant % of time selecting buildings and creating units; MBS hardly affects the gameplay at all. Using Wc3 to predict the effects of MBS is a bad argument. Wc3, due to a myriad of reasons, has a completely different macro game than SC (and surely SC2), and we can't say whether or not MBS would work in SC2 based on its presence in WC3.
QFT MBS sucks for starcraft...even the people who were at Blizzcon and played the demo said the macro had been dumbed down so much because you could set all nexus to one ctrl group and constantly build probes with like no effort at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
